@ckladman Yes, the game tends to favor the allies without objectives, and the axis with. To balance, you could trying giving a bid (additional starting units) to the side that is at a disadvantage, or play with objectives but reduce the payout. (3 ipcs vs 5.)
How to achieve balance part 2-> bids
-
And for the record, I think that, even without NOs, axis could have a slight advantage
You are wrong again, w/o NOs, allies are favored in both 41 and 42.
-
There is no reason to have any confusions when bidding for sides.
Usually both players think that side x are favored with OOB rules, or +NOs. Then they start bidding downwards, and if we think axis are favored in 41 +NOs, then we bid for allies. I can start at $20 or $10, or the other player start bidding, it doesn’t matter. Same goes if we think allies are favored.If the peculiar situation arises, and the two players disagree which side are favored, there’s still no need for confusion and messing up bid systems.
If I think allies are favored in Revised, but some other player think axis are favored, then I offer my opponent to play axis w/o bids, and since my opponent thinks axis are favored, he will definately want to play axis w/o a bid, for a certain victory, and I feel the same, except that I believe I will win easily with allies.
In AA50, I still think axis are slightly favored in 41 +NOs, so if I play against someone who thinks allies are favored, then there’s no need for a bid, plain and simple. How can this be misintepreted?
-
You’re using a diffenent bidding system. The system you are discribing isn’t the standard blind bid.
I’m not sure how your system would handle -13 vs. 12 then. Obviously the -13 would get the Axis and the 12 would get 4 inf for the Allies?
Then what is the difference between -12 (your example with the Allies getting 12 more ipc) and my example of actually bidding 12 for the Allies? Suppose both players bid positive, Player A bids 3, Player B bids 6. Now Player A gets the Axis BUT player B gets 6 ipc to spend?
All you’ve done is reverse the porocess to people now bidding absurdly high. You bid -12, I’ll bid 1000. You get the Axis and I get 1000 ipc.
See this is my point you cannot have the option for either side to get units. A decision has to be made where you have to specifically bid for one side and one side only.
Ignore negative bids or discourage them completely, it just creates problems and they simply aren’t needed.
If bidding for one side is so lopsided it will show in the results and you can make adjustments after whatever period of time you want.
To use the League as an Example, we played about 200 games in the Revised Leagues in each of the past two seasons, so if we get near that in the AA50 league and we end up with the Axis winning 60% or more that will tell us one of two things:
- The players in general are bidding too high for the Axis
or (if every game was played with a Zero bid)
2) I need to adjust the rules and next year players will bid for the Allies.The problem with the second option is, not every game has a bid of zero and we’ve allowed tech.
As it looks now the overall game doesn’t appear that unbalanced with the OOB setup. We can complain about needed an inf here or there right now but I’ve seen no evidence that one side is racking up 70-90% win ratios. And we can complain about China or lack of fighting in certain theatres but those complaints don’t equal not have a fair shot to win the game at the start.
Now my personal opinion is the Allies have the slight adv, but even if I’m wrong I enjoy the fact that for the first time in years it is fun and challanging to play the Allies. Through Classic and Revised I always like playing the Axis b/c it was the bigger challange, it is nice to have the burden on the Allies for change and trying to have them step up to see if they can be as good as the were in previous versions.
Edit:
A couple posts were snuck in. This was in response to Func.
-
As for the vote, I voted for unlimited placement.
Typically it is the lowest bid in terms of amount and least likely to have major changes with the initial OOB setup. This assumes competitive play.
If you’re playing just for fun or to increase action in certain areas or the world, then players are free to use whatever system they deem necessary. :-D
But it would probably be much harder to get those adjustments “standardized”. -
We can also use a simple and easy system of bidding upwards, although bidding downwards is better. If we bid upwards I offer my opponent 6 ipc to play axis in AAR, my opponent may offer me 7 if I play axis. The bid will not be higher than 9 ipc probably, most players think $10 for axis in AAR is too high.
There is absolutely no need in bidding if two players disagree in which side are favored. Then there will be no bids whatsoever.
If I played an AA50 (41 +NOs) game vs DarthMaximus, we would play w/o any bids b/c he thinks that allies are slightly favored, while I think axis are slightly favored.
As we cannot say with 100% certainty what bid amount, cash or units, one unit pr.TT or grouping unit bids, are the perfect balance, bids are also very useful to determine which side the players end up with.Imo bidding downwards is the best solution, the bid system described above was invented by the C-sub guys?
Anyway, this system is better than all other bid systems and it’s very simple and works very well. -
OK, this is a pure technical issue, DM
Now I’m a bit confused about what system you purpose. I’m puzzled, I confess, and probably that’s my fault :-)
However, I’ll clarify the system I think we should use. For the sake of this pure technical issue, let’s say that we bid for axis:
- We bid for axis, so the player who bids lower gets axis, being that bid negative or not. Per example, -12 is lower than -2, so in that case, -12 is the winning bid.
- In case of a winning positive or zero bid (a bid of 0 or more), axis receive units (with the restrictions of position decided by all)
- In case of a winning negative bid (a bid of -1 or less), allies receive units (again, the restrictions in placemente are matter of another discussion)
So, in resume: lower bid gets axis. If lower bid is negative, allies receive units; if not, axis receive units
(You could change “units” for “cash”, and in case of negative bid we would get the same system as in AA50 league, that’s why I’m confused)
-
Why negative bids?
I don’t understand why some players would want negative bids, b/c there is no need for it.
-
@Subotai:
We can also use a simple and easy system of bidding upwards, although bidding downwards is better. If we bid upwards I offer my opponent 6 ipc to play axis in AAR, my opponent may offer me 7 if I play axis. The bid will not be higher than 9 ipc probably, most players think $10 for axis in AAR is too high.
I think the reason because DM (and also I) prefers blind bid is for time saving. Bidding downwards is probably the best bid system for live on-line play (as TripleA, p.ex.), but in case of PBEM, we could have a slow starting:
A) I bid axis and receive 5 IPCs
B) Nah, pal, I’ll bid axis and recieve 4 IPCs
C) Uh? dude, I bid axis and receive 3 IPCs
D) Eh? I bid allies, for -2, and allies receive 2 IPCsAnd such until infinite. The starting could slow 3 or 4 days in case of PBEM
But again, I agree that bidding downwards is better if both players are online at the same time :-)
-
@Subotai:
Why negative bids?
I don’t understand why some players would want negative bids, b/c there is no need for it.
OK, both players can disagree what side is favored. But it could happen that one wants play, say allies, because he thinks allies are favored and the other thinks axis is favored but still he want play allies because he played axis last game and wants to change BUT he still doesn’t like playing at disadvantage
So, as you see, we can can get two players disagreeing about what side is balanced but both wanting play the same side -> they need the chance of a negative bid, blind or not
-
I’m not sure how your system would handle -13 vs. 12 then. Obviously the -13 would get the Axis and the 12 would get 4 inf for the Allies?
Nope. Lower bid in this case is -13, so winning player plays axis and losing player plays allies, getting 13 IPCs to spent in allied units
-
OK, both players can disagree what side is favored. But it could happen that one wants play, say allies, because he thinks allies are favored and the other thinks axis is favored but still he want play allies because he played axis last game and wants to change BUT he still doesn’t like playing at disadvantage
So, as you see, we can can get two players disagreeing about what side is balanced but both wanting play the same side -> they need the chance of a negative bid, blind or not
But then you can’t play against such opponents, I would not play axis in revised w/o bids, and definately not against allied bids!
Now this is AA50, but the same logic applies, even if we disagree which side are favored. If I think allies are favored, I will not give you any allied bids if I play axis. Then I should rather get a bid for playing axis.
You think axis are favored, if I think allies are favored, would you give me bid for playing axis?If I’m playing against Darth, none of us thinks that we are at a disadvantage b/c I think axis are favored and he thinks allies are favored. If you play against Darth, same logic applies, you want to play allies, but you think axis are favored, and Darth thinks allies are favored, so why would Darth give you a bid for playing allies?
For me it does not matter what side I play, but I prefere axis. I can play any side in classic, revised and AA50 if the bid is high enough, and logically, my opponent will not give me any higher bid than that he thinks he can win against me.
-
OK, I voted China only bids. I think Europe and Africa are well balanced, the unbalance is a almost totally unchallenged Japan in Asia, so the bids should go there. I think there is a strange effect if we use fully opened bids: 6-8 can be too few, because it will save Egypt but UK fleet at z2 will be toasted anyway BUT 9 can be too much because it will negate Africa to Western Axis and can favor KGF. 12 is out of question because that’s 2 subs for UK, a thing that can kill italian navy round 1, specially if we use tech and UK gets supersubs or HBs (or could mean still 4 guys to Egypt or 4 infs to Philippines, maybe that’s too scary, not sure :| )
The only place where wacky bid effects cannot happen is China. So my vote goes there
A additional point is that maybe we should allow put chinese bid in those territories without units. Of course, my proposition of letting the chineses exit from China is still open, bid or not bid
Of course, people that thinks allies have advantage could add axis units at pleasure. Good luck :-D
Edit: maybe we could use a “Japan restricted” house rule in the sense that Japan cannot attack chinese units 1st round (similiar in a way to “Russia restricted”). They could attack Hong Kong and the other western allies, but starting chinese units woud be saved
I find it ironic that you want to balance the game, yet consider tech effects (like super subs) in your calculations.
A game with tech, since it is random, and some are gamebreaking, is inherently unbalanced. One tech roll of HB by USA on Round 1 and the allies are pretty much guaranteed a win, everything else being equal.
If you want to balance this game, the FIRST thing people need to do is play the basic version.
NO tech
NO objectives
NO bidsSee how many times you win/lose and go from there. yet people have opinions on balance from games with tech, where each side gets so many, and some unbalancing.
But this is ridiculously easy for the Allies. Play the game this way and see it for yourself. Axis would need at least a 10-15 ipc bid without NOs.
Europe is balanced. Asia isn’t. China inf bids are best. Reducing the NOs to 4 and 8 (not just for Axis, but for Allies too) is also worth experimenting with.
-
But this is ridiculously easy for the Allies. Play the game this way and see it for yourself. Axis would need at least a 10-15 ipc bid without NOs.
Europe is balanced. Asia isn’t. China inf bids are best. Reducing the NOs to 4 and 8 (not just for Axis, but for Allies too) is also worth experimenting with.
So instead of a +10 bid to axis w/o NO in 41, people instead give a 4 inf bid to Allies in 41 with NO?
Thats really the same thing. A +12 allies bid.
-
Europe is balanced. Asia isn’t. China inf bids are best. Reducing the NOs to 4 and 8 (not just for Axis, but for Allies too) is also worth experimenting with.
Then you want to change the game itself, not the side balance.
AA50 is the way it is designed. AA50 is supposed to have Europe balanced and Asia unbalanced, if that is your perception of AA50. What you’re really saying is that you don’t like the game, or only a part of it.
Also, AA50 is designed so that w/o NOs KGF is more efficent than KJF. If you don’t like it this way, you want another game, or an AA50 mode, like China mod. Then play the China mod if you don’t like AA50.
-
OK, I voted China only bids. I think Europe and Africa are well balanced, the unbalance is a almost totally unchallenged Japan in Asia, so the bids should go there.
You want to change the game, not the side balance, but at least you made your own mod, so it’s obvious that you don’t like AA50 as it is, but you see it as platform for making other game(s) in which AA50 is the base.
How bout side balance then, you still think allies need $12 in unit bid?
Why can’t you understand that many of us would rather play AA50 than something else? What my concern is in this matter, is the side balance, and what bids should be used to change the game as little as possible, or else I would make my own mod. -
I haven’t determined my opinion on this yet, but some posters here seem to prefer KGF in all circumstances, with or without NOs. There are all kinds of obstacles to KJF strategies….honestly it seems tougher to go KJF in this game then in Revised. The only reason to do anything in the Pacific is NOs.
China unit bids promote balance in this regard.
You can always say that “the game is designed in such and such a way”… no one expects the game to be perfect. We are just talking about how to balance it in a way that promotes a fun and balanced game where a variety of strategies are plausible, rather than balancing it in such a way that the only reasonable choice is the same old race to Berlin and Moscow.
If you think the game is balanced and fun as it is (ie monster Japan vrs. Allied KGF every game) then great. I do too…I’d just like to play with a real China and see whether this would open up some KJF possibilities.
-
Out of topic, Subotai: the thread says clearly NOs are in play
And a unbalance of Asia lead to a unbalance of the whole game. AA50 is designed to be played all the board, but we have a theater that simply is unplayable: Asia, probably due few playtesting time. That unbalance makes Japan rule the Pacific ocean without effort, so they can toast a KGF with Polar Express or hold a Pacific Navy in case of KJF (a bit more difficult but still easy)
-
Out of topic, Subotai: the thread says clearly NOs are in play
And a unbalance of Asia lead to a unbalance of the whole game. AA50 is designed to be played all the board, but we have a theater that simply is unplayable: Asia, probably due few playtesting time. That unbalance makes Japan rule the Pacific ocean without effort, so they can toast a KGF with Polar Express or hold a Pacific Navy in case of KJF (a bit more difficult but still easy)
Japan
- Axis control of Manchuria+Kiangsu [Shanghai region]+French Indo-China/Thailand=5 IPCs
- Axis control of at least four out of: Kwang-tung [Hong-kong region], Netherlands East Indies, Borneo, Phillippine Islands, New Guinea and/or Solomon Islands= 5 IPCs
- Axis control of at least one of: Hawaiian Islands, Australia or India =5 IPCs
US/China
*Allied control of France = 5 IPCs
*Allied control of Phillippine Islands=5 IPCs
*Allied control of West US+Central US+East US= 5 IPCs
*Allied control of at least 3 of the following territories: Midway, Wake Island, Hawaiian Islands and/or Solomon Islands= 5 IPCs.Japan should get 10-15 in bonuses. USA is going to get 10. [If the allies get France, its 15.]
But lets say its 10.Are you saying that in 41 with NO, the pacific is “unplayable” but in 41 without NO the allies will always win. All this over 5 IPC??
I’m used to hyperbole and some over-generalizations, but the difference is FIVE IPC. I dont see how that goes from allied advantage to “totally unplayable.”
-
It’s interesting, I think we may see more KJF type manuevers as we play more games. Just recently I’ve seen some pretty neat stuff with the UK Aus trn, now I’m thinking you can get that trn to Sz 56 on UK 2 and then take the Canadian forces to Car Is. on UK 3 backed-up by Heavy US naval buys on US 1, 2, and 3. This gives the UK an extra NO. Will Japan try and sink the combined fleet? A bunch of US subs in Sz 56 could then counter.
What if Russia stacks Bury heavy? They may expect to lose a ton of inf, but how does this effect J’s future assualt on Ind/Aus? And what if this is planned to help UK take Car Is. on UK 2 with US reinforcements.
I do think there may be some openings to go after Japan. Well, I see potential openings, just a matter of seeing if they can actually be put into use.
-
We are just talking about how to balance it in a way that promotes a fun and balanced game where a variety of strategies are plausible, rather than balancing it in such a way that the only reasonable choice is the same old race to Berlin and Moscow.
If you think the game is balanced and fun as it is (ie monster Japan vrs. Allied KGF every game) then great. I do too…I’d just like to play with a real China and see whether this would open up some KJF possibilities.
Excellent point! +1 karma
I think this needs to be specified when we speak of balance:
I prefer the former (balance it in a way that promotes a fun and balanced game where a variety of strategies are plausible).
However in my limited (20 games) experience, it is my opinion that this is not possible with the current OOB rules. In fact, my FTF group has already altered the rules since we live by the above creedo (in RED)
Suggested Topics
